5 ms·

A company does not have any interests since it's not sentient. A company serves different stakeholders, most importantly, customers, employees (which includes m

by em500 6y ago

A company does not have any interests since it's not sentient. A company serves different stakeholders, most importantly, customers, employees (which includes management) and owners, which for large companies is typically an enormous and diverse group, including VC, activists, passive absentee owners and usually also management. Your story that some activist or VCs don't act in the "companies" interest doesn't make much sense. At most you could say that some owners have different interests than others.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
btilly 6y ago
Short version, the interests of VCs are for higher risk than is in the interest of people whose lives are invested in the company. (Because the VC can spread risk across multiple investments, while the people in the company can't.)
- em500 6y ago
  For modern large companies, employee tenures are typically only a few years and passive ownership (typically via investment funds) even shorter and more diversified, so I don't know which people you're talking about who have their whole life invested in a single company. VC aren't really interested in mom and pop restaurants and flower shops.
  - btilly 6y ago
    Clarification. VCs invest in startups, not "modern large companies". (Getting a modern large company would be the hoped for outcome, not starting place.) While it is true that the people working there generally move on after a few years, it is also true that founders and early employees dedicate their lives to the startup.
    - em500 6y ago
      If your main claim is that VC interests are not fully aligned with founders or employees, sure, probably, but I don't seen any party having claim to some moral upper ground. If you're talking about SV style VC backed startups, It's not evident at all to me that VCs are seeking higher risk than founders seeking VC financing or early employees seeking significant equity stakes. Furthermore, they only dedicate a large part their lives to the if it looks like it's heading towards a big payoff, otherwise that dedication is limited to a few years at best.
Talanes 6y ago
The interest of the company is obviously it's continued existence. There's a debate to be had as to whether that vague goal is even worth considering, given that it does not perfectly align with the interests of any actual human being, but it's clear what was meant by that turn of phrase.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I think there is a difference between the truism that the companies which exist are the ones that didn't destroy themselves, and ascribing an "interest" to a company. Similar to the shortcomings of treating evolution as having a goal. I'm not going to write an essay on it right now though.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Continued existence is the only goal that you can ascribe to evolution though. Sure, it's not a guided intelligence, just a tautology: existence is success. Fail to exist and you're no longer part of the process.

by em500 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

btilly 6y ago

Short version, the interests of VCs are for higher risk than is in the interest of people whose lives are invested in the company. (Because the VC can spread risk across multiple investments, while the people in the company can't.)

em500 6y ago
For modern large companies, employee tenures are typically only a few years and passive ownership (typically via investment funds) even shorter and more diversified, so I don't know which people you're talking about who have their whole life invested in a single company. VC aren't really interested in mom and pop restaurants and flower shops.
- btilly 6y ago
  Clarification. VCs invest in startups, not "modern large companies". (Getting a modern large company would be the hoped for outcome, not starting place.) While it is true that the people working there generally move on after a few years, it is also true that founders and early employees dedicate their lives to the startup.
  - em500 6y ago
    If your main claim is that VC interests are not fully aligned with founders or employees, sure, probably, but I don't seen any party having claim to some moral upper ground. If you're talking about SV style VC backed startups, It's not evident at all to me that VCs are seeking higher risk than founders seeking VC financing or early employees seeking significant equity stakes. Furthermore, they only dedicate a large part their lives to the if it looks like it's heading towards a big payoff, otherwise that dedication is limited to a few years at best.

Talanes 6y ago

The interest of the company is obviously it's continued existence. There's a debate to be had as to whether that vague goal is even worth considering, given that it does not perfectly align with the interests of any actual human being, but it's clear what was meant by that turn of phrase.

perl4ever 6y ago
I think there is a difference between the truism that the companies which exist are the ones that didn't destroy themselves, and ascribing an "interest" to a company. Similar to the shortcomings of treating evolution as having a goal. I'm not going to write an essay on it right now though.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Continued existence is the only goal that you can ascribe to evolution though. Sure, it's not a guided intelligence, just a tautology: existence is success. Fail to exist and you're no longer part of the process.